Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with aggravated kidnapping, burglary, intimidation and escape. During the ensuing jury trial, Defendant appeared wearing a security leg brace. Defendant requested that the sheriff’s deputies remove his brace, but the district court denied the request, concluding that the leg brace was concealed enough that it did not prejudice Defendant. The jury found Defendant guilty of aggravated kidnapping, intimidation, and escape. The district court sentenced Defendant to forty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s request to order sheriff’s deputies to remove the security brace from Defendant’s leg during trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the test set forth in State v. Herrick before denying Defendant’s request to remove his leg brace, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Rickett" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to felony burglary. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant and erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in his home pursuant to a search warrant; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made while in custody and statements he made while being interrogated. View "State v. Kasparek" on Justia Law

Z, the twelve-year-old son of Mother and Father, was born in 2003 when the parents were unmarried and in high school. In 2007, the parents filed a stipulated first amended parenting plan providing that Z would reside primarily with Jessica, while Father would have certain parenting time. In 2014, Father filed a pro se emergency motion to amend the amended plan, arguing that Mother’s multiple moves and frequent changes in schools were disruptive to Z’s stability. After a hearing, the district court named Father as the primary residential parent and providing that Mother would have parenting time on designated weekends and holidays. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by modifying the parenting plan; (2) the district court’s findings of fact related to Z’s best interests were not clearly erroneous; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Mother’s request for attorney fees and costs. View "In re Parenting of Z.D.L.-B" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a no-contest plea to felony incest and, in 2004, received a twenty-year suspended sentence. Appellant later pleaded guilty to two counts of felony sexual assault and, in 2007, was sentenced to twenty years ‘ imprisonment with ten years suspended for each felony, to run consecutively. Appellant subsequently filed numerous postconviction pleadings, all to no avail. In 2015, Appellant filed a motion to vacate his conviction and dismiss the charges. The district court summarily denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the doctrine of res judicata applied to Defendant’s appeal and barred the rehearing of issues already litigated. View "Montgomery v. State" on Justia Law

In two separate proceedings, the district court adjudicated A.S. and A.M., the biological children of Mother and Father, as youths in need of care. The district court subsequently filed a petition for termination of parental rights as to Mother for both A.S. and A.M., and as to Father for A.S. After a hearing, the district court entered orders terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate Mother’s constitutional rights by terminating Mother’s parental rights to A.S. and A.M. after finding that the conduct or condition rendering Mother unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father’s parental rights to A.S. View "In re A.S." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, criminal endangerment, and assault on a minor. Defendant was sentenced to thirty-five years in the Montana State Prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed reversible error when it declined to provide jury instructions proposed by Defendant on accomplice liability pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 26-1-303(4). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not giving Defendant’s proposed instruction on accomplice liability. View "State v. Charlo-Whitworth" on Justia Law

In 1990, Gregg and her four-year-old son, Aaron, moved into Hanson’s home. They moved out in 1992. After they broke up, Gregg became concerned about Aaron's nightmares and anger, bed-wetting, locking the door when he bathed, and hiding when someone came to the door. Gregg contacted Detective Lamb, who interviewed Aaron, who testified that he and Hanson would shower together and wash each other’s genital areas and that Aaron performed oral sex on Hanson. Hanson was convicted of sexual assault and deviate sexual conduct, MCA 45-5-502(1); 45-5-505(1), and sentenced to 20 years.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. After his pro se petition for state post-conviction relief was rejected, Hanson’s federal habeas petition was dismissed as procedurally defaulted. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2003. In 2012, by counsel, Hanson sought a hearing on "newly discovered evidence" that potential witnesses had contacted Lamb (now deceased) and told her Gregg was lying; Lamb told these witnesses “to stay away” and did not inform Hanson’s attorney. The petition claimed voicemails left by Gregg should have been played for the jury because they indicated she was angry with Hanson for ending their relationship. Because of a warrant for his arrest, Hanson failed to appear for three scheduled depositions. The district court dismissed Hanson’s petition. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, noting that Hanson had been warned of the possible sanction and the prejudice to the state. View "Hanson v. State" on Justia Law

At 1:37 a.m., Haddad reported to Missoula 911 that he was driving on Hillview when a black Acura 2.0 CL with gold badging pulled out in front of him; that the driver was swerving; that he could not describe the driver due to the vehicle’s tinted windows nor see the license plate; and that he would “possibly” be willing to sign a complaint. He provided his name and phone number, but declined to provide his address, indicating he was willing to be contacted by law enforcement. Officers Jones and Horton responded; on Hillview, Horton passed a vehicle that fit Haddad’s description. Jones saw it turn onto 34th Street, searched the area and found a black Acura 2.0 CL in an apartment complex parking lot. Tye was standing near the vehicle. Jones observed that she was swaying, had watery eyes and slow, slurred speech, and smelled of alcohol, and determined Tye was intoxicated. Tye admitted she had several drinks before driving down Hillview. Jones arrested her, then discovered that Haddad lied about his location. Haddad admitted calling 911 from his residence after Tye left that location intoxicated. Haddad did not want Tye to know he was the complainant. The court heard evidence that 911 dispatchers do not regularly use the GPS system, but rely on the information callers provide because it is more accurate, concluded that Jones reasonably relied on Haddad’s information, and denied a motion to suppress. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, based on the “Pratt” factors: whether the informant identifies himself and exposes himself to criminal and civil liability if the report is false; whether the report is based on the informant’s personal observations; and whether the officer’s own observations corroborated the informant’s information. View "Missoula v. Tye" on Justia Law

Stephanie filed for dissolution of her four-year marriage with John in 2002. Following a November 2003 dissolution hearing, the court approved a stipulated Final Parenting Plan and Property Settlement Agreement, under which John paid $600 per month in child support for the couple’s children, born in 1999 and 2000. John consistently made timely child support payments, but neglected to establish a College Trust as agreed. In November 2013, Stephanie requested modification of the child support arrangement. The Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) calculated monthly child support totalling $1,142 per month. John was to begin making these payments in February 2014. While John’s appeal was pending, Stephanie learned that John had not paid their daughter’s tuition for the school year . CSED submitted a revised modification order that included John’s recalculated child support of a total of $2,048 per month. The court found that the evidence presented supported CSED’s use of past overtime earnings to calculate John’s child support; upheld CSED’s calculation; and ordered the parties to establish a 529 plan account for each child, with John to deposit $17,531.18 and Stephanie to deposit $4,481.23. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, but modified the retroactive application of the $2,048 per month child support. View "Marriage of Healy" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count each of sexual intercourse without consent, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of children. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an adequate inquiry into his request for substitute counsel and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s request for substitute counsel, and further investigation by the court was unnecessary; and (2) Defendant’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is dismissed without prejudice to raising it in a postconviction relief proceeding. View "State v. Cheetham" on Justia Law